Fox News on climate: skip the science, report the “controversy”

A leaked e-mail from Fox News indicates a managing editor has officially …

Accusations of biased reporting against Fox News are common enough that they're no longer, well, news. And examples of poor reporting on the science of climate change are painfully common. But it's apparently the season of the leak, and a progressive media organization has obtained a leaked e-mail from Bill Sammon, a managing editor at Fox News, in which he directly orders his reporters to provide misleading science coverage.

Reportedly, a Fox staffer forwarded an internal e-mail to Media Matters, a progressive organization that monitors conservative media outlets. Entitled "Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data..." it continues:

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

To a large extent, this represents the triumph of the creationist movement's strategy of claiming there's a controversy about evolution, then demanding coverage of the controversy, rather than the science of evolution. It also requires a similar form of scientific ignorance, in that Sammon doesn't seem to recognize the difference between a measurement of temperature change and the theory that explains these changes.

And the position specifically abdicates any responsibility to identify facts, instead favoring an attempt to appear balanced. Yes, critics have called the temperature record into question. But these criticisms do not appear to be scientifically valid. Some focus on the temperature record created at the CRU (site of the climate e-mail theft), but this is one of three global records, all of which show nearly identical trends (the other two are from NASA and NOAA).

Others focus on the possible impacts of urbanization on the temperature record. However, an analysis of US data suggests that any distortions in temperatures readings are weak and biased toward colder temperatures. A separate analysis identified urban areas by the light they emit at night, and found that "urban effects on analyzed global change are small." (This latter paper is still in revision.)

Even if you discard all temperature records, there is plenty of other evidence that the planet has warmed: the loss of glaciers, the shrinking Arctic ice cap, habitats that have shifted towards the poles and to higher elevations, accelerated animal migrations, etc. And, if you can't be bothered with the underlying science, the US government and scientific societies have both described the reality of climate change.

In short, there may be a controversy over the existence and direction of recent temperature trends, but the controversy doesn't appear to be factual, and it certainly has nothing to do with any theoretical issues. But Sammon doesn't seem interested in learning any of this. On a personal level, that's perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, Sammon has chosen to turn his willful ignorance into official policy for a large and influential staff of journalists.

Hey cool, another Law and Disorder piece in Nobel Intent. I'll just get the mods to move it over...

Media emphasizes conflict over facts: Film at 11.

Pull Fox News and replace it with the name of any media outlet (Arstechnica included) and you've got the same thing. It's about ratings. Believe it or not, Rupert Murdoch did not become as successful as he is by brainwashing millions into buying things from him, he did it buy creating a product they want to buy.

It's the same reason you write a piece about global warming and use the Fox News tagline to draw readership.

the position you point out:quote:we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.end quote:

Does not support your theory. Any 'reasonable' thinking person can see this statement doesn't abdicate a position. Notice the warmed (or cooled) position? Seems fair and balanced to me.

This is the kind of misinformation that non-thinking people are buying into. And I don't really care what side of an issue you take, or the issue itself.

I'm confused, I can't read the linked email right now, but the quote you gave from it doesn't suggest anything that you claim in the article. The way I read the quote is:"Unless you're going to report the fact that many of the models have been called into question, don't report the results or findings of these models because that wouldn't give the viewer the whole picture"

It's true that Fox News has reported on the controversy surrounding global warming more than the science, but what TV news organization is any different? You only get science analysis at science news organizations (like Ars, or a scientific journal).

I wish I could somehow remove fox news from being able to be even pass through as I flip through. O and while im wishing I wish the entire right wing was smart enough to carry on a debate without looking like they are still in the 4th grade.

I miss the days that news agencies reported, rather than manufactured from whole cloth, what was going on in the world...

Fox News is part of the Republican Party's marketing wing. It's not a "news agency".

Right, and I'm sure you believe there is no liberal bias from the other 98% of the media. LOL

Of the intensity and interoperability of Fox and the GOP? Not even close. This isn't even something that is questionable. When practically the entire anticipated 2012 GOP Presidential contenders are all active contributors to Fox, when you've got the sharing of talking points between Republican politicians and Fox hosts so they can all share the same message, and when you've got internal Fox memos telling the staff to actively shift vocabulary to negative language because they want to shift their viewer's perception of an issue, no, you don't get to whine about "liberal bias" from other media sources.

I wish politicians and news organizations would stop interpreting scientific data like they are experts and actually listen to the people who know about this stuff. Why is it when a doctor tells you that you have a problem, you believe them, but when a scientists says it "Joe Public" is able to disagree?

the position you point out:quote:we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.end quote:

Does not support your theory. Any 'reasonable' thinking person can see this statement doesn't abdicate a position. Notice the warmed (or cooled) position? Seems fair and balanced to me.

This is the kind of misinformation that non-thinking people are buying into. And I don't really care what side of an issue you take, or the issue itself.

Shame on you.

Except that scientific data clearly points out a warming. A fair and balanced position reports on issues not by always choosing the middle ground but by reporting on topics based on the evidence for them. If there's a 200 lb man on one side of a see-saw and a 50 lb kid on the other side, the "fair and balanced" position of the fulcrum on the see-saw continuum is not dead center. To balance this see-saw issue you need to put the fulcrum very close to the 200 lb man.

You see fair and balanced coverage of gravity all the time. Gravity denialists get no air time whatsoever, because gravity, as a whole, is pretty hard to discredit. Yet scientific articles talking about the issues involved in the finer points of gravity get attention generally appropriate to their level of scientific inquiry.

I'm confused, I can't read the linked email right now, but the quote you gave from it doesn't suggest anything that you claim in the article. The way I read the quote is:"Unless you're going to report the fact that many of the models have been called into question, don't report the results or findings of these models because that wouldn't give the viewer the whole picture"

The problem is that if you believe this memo, they're not calling into question the models which attempt to explain why the globe is warming, but instead are calling into question whether the globe is warming. As the Ars article points out, the latter question is thoroughly answered in the affirmative by the available data.

I miss the days that news agencies reported, rather than manufactured from whole cloth, what was going on in the world...

Fox News is part of the Republican Party's marketing wing. It's not a "news agency".

Right, and I'm sure you believe there is no liberal bias from the other 98% of the media. LOL

Hm, no, there really isn't significant liberal bias in most mainstream news organizations. It's debatable if that was ever the case, but it certainly hasn't been for a good 15-20 years.

BWAA HAH HAH HAAAAA!!!!!!!

You either just succeeded in a great joke, or you haven't watched CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC or CNN news in the last 15-20 years.

Or he's read the studies by people such as Pew research that show that the majority of coverage is not slanted or slants slightly to the right. The notable exception being MSNBC but again, they have news, then they have commentary, just like Fox. Fascinating the way the facts don't bear out any actual bias. Facts are our friends. Yous should use them.

So ... true_believer and activist Timmer got his climate ox gored. It's hot he screams it's hot hot hot so sweat ya useless scum !!! He stomps and stamps and kicks his own shins ... cause everybody **ought** to be mad how and when Timmer is mad.

Well well -- lots of us have not yet seen necessary and sufficient data ... and the co-supporting predictions ... to justify any certainty of human induced global climate change of the hot-temp variety. Foot-stomping Timmer cares not. Oh da po' po' neo.Stalinist media poo.

Of the intensity and interoperability of Fox and the GOP? Not even close. This isn't even something that is questionable. When practically the entire anticipated 2012 GOP Presidential contenders are all active contributors to Fox, when you've got the sharing of talking points between Republican politicians and Fox hosts so they can all share the same message, and when you've got internal Fox memos telling the staff to actively shift vocabulary to negative language because they want to shift their viewer's perception of an issue, no, you don't get to whine about "liberal bias" from other media sources.

*SNIFF* I smell a hipster jackass who loves to parrot the talking points he likes to hear. Ever heard of Chris Matthews? The guy who got a "shiver" up his leg when Obama won, and who recently called the press conference of Slick Willy and Barry O a team that is "the most vital in the country today" and "inspired by god"? How about that loud-mouthed ass Keith Olberman, aka - the Glenn Beck of the left?

I wish politicians and news organizations would stop interpreting scientific data like they are experts and actually listen to the people who know about this stuff. Why is it when a doctor tells you that you have a problem, you believe them, but when a scientists says it "Joe Public" is able to disagree?

It's because Docs aren't scientists, They're trained professionals. your personal physician is not performing ground breaking research on you testing every conceivable treatment. they are in fact only sticking to proven treatments.

I wish I could somehow remove fox news from being able to be even pass through as I flip through. O and while im wishing I wish the entire right wing was smart enough to carry on a debate without looking like they are still in the 4th grade.

Like not having to read off of a teleprompter, and when it goes down, sounding like a stammering fool, with no clue what you are talking about? I agree.